The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
While we’re in favor of streamlining the way Local Node proposals are reviewed, and it’s something we’ve brought up when voting on local node proposals in the past, we’re skeptical of creating a separate, standalone council just for that purpose.
At the same time, we’re unsure that empowering this council with more responsibilities and broadening its scope is a solid justification for the existence of this separate council, especially when there’s some mandate overlap with the Growth Council that was recently established.
One approach that could mitigate the above concerns is to effectively merge the scope of the Community Council with that of the Growth Council. Instead of creating a separate 5-member council, the Growth Council could simply add a community organiser to lead all efforts associated with Local Nodes. If the workload is too much, then an additional member (e.g., a delegate) could be added. With that in mind, the additional scope should be discussed and defined with the existing Growth Council to ensure we’re not diluting their focus and capacity.